AHC: Franks invade Britain

Just like it says on the tin. The challenge is to get the Franks to cross the English Channel and hold territory in Britain. Bonus points if the Angles and Saxons hold territory in modern-day France. How might this happen? How long will this state of affairs last? Might we see a balkanized Britain and France?
 
1) Britain and France would likely not appear ITTL. Both appeared thanks to direct consequences of Frankish takeover and Anglo-Saxon domination.

2) For having the peoples that composed the Frankish "confederation" crossing North Sea instide Rhine, you'll probably need a III century PoD in order to prevent the first settlements (laeti, mostly) in Gaul to appear.
However, such a PoD is likely to butterfly away the existence of Franks as a distinct union of people, and then as a people later.

You need them migrating North-West during the III century at latest, maybe due to a migration of peoples from OTL Danemark or from a westward gothic migration (That makes slightly more sense than the first possibility but prevent Angli to be in contact with Gaul)
The ex-future Franks would be likely assimilated within North Sea peoples (Frisians and Saxons) and disappear as such.

Migrating northern Germania people would be certainly too weak to prevail on their own without a big stroke of luck, but it's a small possibility that you end with a Anglian league instead of Frankish : however, it would be more a western Germanic confederation comparable to OTL Franks than a real Angle one.

3) To resume : while it's possible to have such migrations (while not likely), it's unlikely that they would keep the names they had OTL, or their cultural distinctions. Eventually, "Franks" would look like OTL Saxons, and "Angles" like OTL Franks or Alamans.
 
1) Britain and France would likely not appear ITTL. Both appeared thanks to direct consequences of Frankish takeover and Anglo-Saxon domination.

Britai and France are used for convenience's sake. Obviously with such a POD neither nation would be remotely recognizable.
 
What if Charlemagne does not divide his empire after death? I am not that experienced in frankish history and culture to assess, if thats possible.

His successor is soon emperor of the WRE like his father was and dreams the dream of a restauration of the empire. Next logical step is Britain and/or Spain.
 
There's apparently some archaeological evidence for a Frankish element -- or, at least, noticeable Frankish cultural influence -- amongst the "Jutish" (mainly Frisian?) settlers in Kent IOTL, even before the royal marriage that gave King Ethelbert a Frankish princess as his wife.
 
Last edited:
Given that Britain is the name the island has had since before the Roman times (in various localizations), I don't see why it wouldn't have it here.

Anyway, this is actually really easy, since it happened. During the reigns of the rebels Carausius and Allectus in Britannia, the Franks were key allies of the rebels, and composed a fair portion of their armies. The whole bunch of them were defeated by Constantius (Constantine's dad), including a very large army of former Frankish mercenaries that had decided that they really liked London (in the 'oh, that looks like a nice place to settle down and sack' way).
 
What if Charlemagne does not divide his empire after death? I am not that experienced in frankish history and culture to assess, if thats possible.
Charlemagne didn't divided his empire after his death, he tried to do so in 806, but his son was the sole inheritor.

Louis tried to not divide the empire, at least make the others sons submitting to an imperial suzerainty of Lothar, but it failed with much civil war.

That's only a part of the problem, but contradictions between frankish customs (equal division of royalty) and tentatives of actual imperial sucessions were too importants and benefitted too much to the carolingian elites to be that sucessful.

Let's admit, for the sake of the discussion, that the empire remains united (only one surviving heir by exemple). Carolingia is still pretty much challenged.

This picture resumes quite well some problems it faced.

MuslimTradeLinks.preview.png


Others factors clearly made the crisis happen and can't be limited to Islamic overspending : by exemple, Vikings raids due to a possible demographical crisis (Marc Bloch speculative thesis), no more possibility of fructuous raids redistributing wealth among frankish nobility (forced to improve their production, and a more localist stance), collapse of Frisian takeover of North Sea trade replaced by Norses, etc.

Admitting Carolingia survives as a whole, their possibilities of expansion are pretty limited : Spain is, while divided, pretty much under Cordoban dominance (while itself on crisis) and crossing (with which fleet?) a North Sea or a Channel virtually under Viking dominance seems unlikely.

I would think Carolingians would have enough trouble on their hands, trying to stay in power to begin with (something they didn't managed to do OTL), stand united and eventually strong enough to launch such invasions.

It's not impossible to do, but would require much change.
 
There's apparently some archaeological evidence for a Frankish element -- or, at least, noticeable Frankish cultural influence -- amongst the "Jutish" (mainly Frisian?) settlers in Kent IOTL, even before the royal marriage that gave King Ethelbert a Frankish princess as his wife.

Yeah the Eucii/Euthiones who were associated with the Saxons and under the Franks at one point.
 
Given that Britain is the name the island has had since before the Roman times (in various localizations), I don't see why it wouldn't have it here.
The use of Britain to call the political, and not geographical, ensembles was fairly recent. Admitting thatbretwalda is coming from Britain, something that is debated, it was more of a chronical name for a type of domination rather than naming a political ensemble.

Seeing how Brittania might as well ends as divided than OTL (and having a lasting division ITTL), the word itself might be used only as geographical (somewhat desuete) use, as Gaul was.

Now, as the OP precised he meant *OTL* Britain and France, the point isn't that important :)

Anyway, this is actually really easy, since it happened.
I think the OP may have asked WI Franks invade and gain dominance on Brittania instead of Gaul, with the possibility of Saxons and Angles dominating Gaul instead.
 
I think the OP may have asked WI Franks invade and gain dominance on Brittania instead of Gaul, with the possibility of Saxons and Angles dominating Gaul instead.

I understand that. My point is that its easy to change the trajectory, since the Franks *were* in Britain, they just didn't stay/got defeated there. After Constantius defeated the Frankish former allies of Allectus in Britain, he fought against them in Gaul and settled them in various territories there.

Maybe things go better for the British rebels, and the Franks continue to move over there as mercenaries for a generation or so. Maybe Constantius decides to settle the defeated Franks in Britain, rather than Gaul. Either way, its not hard at all to imagine a Frankish population in Britain in this period.
 
I understand that. My point is that its easy to change the trajectory, since the Franks *were* in Britain, they just didn't stay/got defeated there. After Constantius defeated the Frankish former allies of Allectus in Britain, he fought against them in Gaul and settled them in various territories there.

I don't think it's easy to change the trajectory. Franks settled in Gaul since the III century, as letae at first then as allies, a province richer and more accessible for a people that didn't have a real access to North Sea or with great naval skills.
It's doable, but not without merging or at the very last allying with Frisians or Saxons and eventually being confused with them (as some "Frankish" peoples did OTL).
Gaul is more close, more known to them, with more presence and as Franks (the free ones at least) managed to ally themselves with Romans, they had some opportunities.

Of course, we could end with Franks being harshly defeated by Romans IATL, but generally hugely defeated league ended by collapsing and peoples joining or forming new ones. ITTL, we could have Salian, by exemple, joining up with Frisians and leading an invasion in Britain.

Either way, its not hard at all to imagine a Frankish population in Britain in this period.
I entierly agree with you on this, since it happened. Having them ending as dominant over Britto-Romans and other migrating western Germans seems an harder deal however.
 
I think the OP may have asked WI Franks invade and gain dominance on Brittania instead of Gaul, with the possibility of Saxons and Angles dominating Gaul instead.

I doubt, that the Franks would fully give up their homelands in former Germania inferior and Belgica, if they invade or settle in England in the late 4th/early 5t century. Perhaps they will not expand to the rest of Gaul that much like they did OTL. The gallo-roman empire in the Gaul perhaps survives this way as a successor state. The political map of the mid-age regarding Germany, France and England would look pretty different.

But in this case there is still no route for the Saxons to Gaul.
 
Did we have to have them dominant?

At least locally, in order to have them "hold territories". From the OP, I tought it was implicit to have them putting a duchy or a kingdom in place. Something more than OTL.

Now, if we search for less and only local distinction and autonomy, then as it happened historically both for Franks in Britannia and Saxons in Loire and Vexin, then you have a point.
 
Top